THE MASSACRE OF THE BANU QURAYZAA re-examination of a tradition

The story of the massacre of the Banu Qurayza (April 627 A.D./Dhul-Qa'da 5 A.H.), l as recorded in various compilations of the Sira-litera-ture, is concerned with the final blow which the prophet Muhammadstruck at the last Jewish tribal group in Medina.

According to the widely current tradition, transmitted by the earlyMuslim scholars of hadith, biographers of the Prophet, jurists and his-torians, Qurayza are said to have concluded a pact with the Prophet inwhich they committed themselves not to help the enemies of the Proph-et. But when the enemies of the Prophet (i.e. the Confederates, Qurayshand their Allies, the Ahzab - K.) besieged Medina the Banu Qurayzaare alleged to have aided the forces of the Prophet's enemies, the Ahzab.Huyayy b. Akhtab, a former leader of the exiled Jewish tribe of theBanu Nadlr is blamed for having instigated Ka'b b. Asad, the leader ofQurayza, to violate the agreement with the Prophet and for havingpressed him to negotiate with the leaders of the Ahzab. The Prophetsucceeded by stratagem to undermine the mutual confidence betweenQurayza and the Ahzab and to spoil their strategic plans against himand against the Muslim community at Medina. The failure of the siegeof Medina by the Ahzab and their disordered and hasty retreat markeda manifest victory for the Prophet and left Qurayza in a precarious posi-tion, facing the forces of the Prophet in isolation.

Immediately after the withdrawal of the Ahzab the Prophet was ac-tually summoned by the angel Jibril to march out against the Banu Qur-ayza. The siege laid by the forces of the Prophet on the stronghold ofQurayza brought about a deterioration of the situation of the besiegedshortly afterwards. Their leader, Ka`b b. Asad put forward three propos-als as solution: (a) that they should convert to Islam, (b) that they shouldkill the women and children and march out from the stronghold to fightcourageously the besieging force of the Muslims, or (c) that they should

l See J.M.B. Jones, The Chronology ofthe Maghazi, BSOAS XIX, 1957, pp. 274, 251.

62

surprise Muhammad and his troops by a speedy and unexpected attackon the eve of Saturday. All the proposals were, however, rejected by theBanu Qurayza.

When the situation deteriorated Qurayza sent their messenger to ne-gotiate with the Prophet the terms of their surrender. They proposed tosurrender and depart leaving behind their land and property and takingwith them movable property only, the load of a camel per person. Whenthis proposal was rejected, the messenger returned asking that Qurayzabe permitted to depart without any property, taking with them only theirfamilies; but this proposal too was rejected and the Prophet insisted thatthey surrender unconditionally and subject themselves to his judgment.Qurayza asked for Abu Lubaba, a Companion of the Prophet whom theytrusted, to be sent to them in order to have his advice. Abo Lubabaindiscreetly pointed with his hand to his throat, a movement which clear-ly conveyed slaughter; he regretted his treason towards God and theProphet, repented and the Prophet was glad to convey to him the joyoustiding of God's forgiveness, as it was revealed to him.

The Banu Qurayza, compelled to surrender, descended from theirstronghold and were led to Medina. The men, their hands pinioned be-hind their backs, were put in a court (dar) in Medina; the women andchildren are said to have been put in another one. When the Prophet wasasked by people of Aus, who were allies of Qurayza, to show leniencytowards their allies the Qurayza, he proposed to appoint as arbiter a manfrom Aus, Sa=d b. Mu-adh. Qurayza consented and so did the attendingMuslims; among the Muslims were, of course, the Aus who in turn be-gan to intercede with Sa-d for Qurayza; Sa-d's harsh answer was a badomen for the fate of Qurayza. When all the parties agreed to abide by thejudgment of Sa'd he gave his concise verdict: the men shall be put todeath, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils dividedamong the Muslims. The Prophet ratified the judgment and stated thatSa-d's decree had been issued as a decree of God pronounced fromabove the Seven Heavens. Accordingly some 400 (or 600, or 700, or 800,or even 900) men from Qurayza were led on the order of the Prophet tothe market of Medina; trenches were dug in the place, the men wereexecuted and buried in the trenches. The Prophet attended the execu-tions, which were carried out by CAlI and al-Zubayr. Youths who had notreached maturity were spared. Women and children were sold into slav-ery; a number of them were distributed as gifts among the Companions.

63

The story of the massacre of Qurayza, of which a short summaryhas been given above, was thoroughly studied and analysed by severalwestern scholars, who severely criticized the Prophet for it. 2 Althoughnot unanimous in their assessment of certain details of the story, thescholars are in agreement concerning the cruelty of the judgment of Sa-db. Mu'adh, Some Muslim scholars didn't deny the merciless character ofSa-d's judgment, but justified it pointing out that the Bam} Qurayza hadyielded to the treacherous activities of Huyayy b. Akhtab and had com-mitted deeds of treason. Sa-d's decree, although severe and harsh, was avital necessity as he regarded the fate of the Jews as a question of lifeand death for the Muslim community. The responsibility for the killingof Qurayza should be placed on Huyayy b. Akhtab who instigated thewar-activities against the Prophet.'

2 See e.g. Martin Hartmann, Der Islam, Leipzig 1909, p. 16: "Ein ewiges Schandmalbleibt die Ruchlosigkeit mit der Muhammed gegen den Stamm Quraiza verfuhr: 600 Mannererlitten den Tod durch Henkershand, die Weiber und Kinder wurden verkauft." W. Muir,Mahomet and Islam, London 1895, p. 151: "The massacre of Banu Coreitza was a barbarousdeed which cannot be justified by any reason of political necessity... " "But the indiscriminateslaughter of the whole tribe cannot be recognized otherwise than as an act of monstrous cruelty,which casts an indelible blot upon the Prophet's name... " J. Andrae, Mohammed. Sein Lebenund sein G1aube,G6ttingen 1932, p. 126: "Es war der letzte Jundenstamm in Medina, BanuKuraiza, den er nun exemplarisch zu strafen beschloss wegen der Unzuverlassigkeit, die erwiihrend der Belagerung gezeigt hatte. Bei dieser Gelegenheit zeigte er wieder den Mangel anEhrlichkeit und moralischem Mut, der einen weniger sympathischen Zug seines Charaktersbildete... " F. Buhl, Das Leben Muhammeds, Trans!. H.H. Schaeder, Heidelberg 1955, p. 275:"... Diesmal war Muhammad jedoch zu erbittert urn Schonung zu gewahren: aber die Art wieer seinen Willen durschsetzte. hatte etwas in hohem Grade Raffiniertes und zeigt wieder seinenCharakter in einem sehr abstossenden Licht..." M. Gaudefroy-Demombynes, Mahomet, Paris1969, p. 145: "L'incident des B. Qoraiza est une vilaine page de l'histoire de Mohammed, maisc'est un acte qui fut tres profitable a la gloire d'Allah et de son prophete ... " W. MontgomeryWatt, Muhammad at Medina, Oxford, 1956, p. 214: "Some European writers have criticizedthis sentence for what they call its savage and inhuman character ... " Maxime Rodinson,Mohammed, New York 1974, p. 213: "It is not easy to judge the massacre of the Qurayza. Itmust be remembered that the customs of the time were extremely primitive ... " F. Gabrieli,Muhammad and the Conquest of Islam, London 1968, p. 73: "This dark episode, whichMuslim tradition, it must be said, takes quite calmly, has provoked lively discussion amongwestern biographers of Muhammed, with caustic accusations on the one hand and legalisticexcuses on the other... In this case he was ruthless, with the approval of his conscience and ofhis God, for the two were one; we can only record the fact, while reaffirming our consciousnessas Christians and civilised men, that this God or at least this aspect of Him, is not ours."

3 Muhammad Husayn Hayka!, Hayiu Muhammad, Cairo 135g, p. 321. And see e.g.Hafiz Ghulam Sarwar, Muhammad the Holy Prophet, Lahore 1967, p. 247: "No one candispute the justice of the sentence on the Quraiza ... Traitors are always executed unless theyask pardon and circumstances justify the pardon being granted... Muhammad was absolutely

64

IOdd assumptions appear in W.N. Arafat's article on this subject.' Arafattries to prove the unreliability of the account of the events of the massa-cre of Qurayza as recorded by Ibn Ishaq (d. 151 A.H.) and transmittedby later Muslim scholars, historians and biographers of the Prophet. Thelater historians "draw, and in most cases depend on Ibn Ishaq", statesArafat and comments: "But Ibn Ishaq died in 151 A.H., i.e., 145 yearsafter the event in question".' Arafat's severe criticism refers first of allto the way in which Ibn Ishaq collected his information: his sources wereuntrustworthy, uncertain and late; his account is in Arafat's opinion "asum-total of the collective reports, pieced together". Arafat quotes thricethe opinion of Malik b. Anas (from Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, 'Uyun al-athar)about Muhammad b. Ishaq: "he was a liar", "an impostor" who "trans-mits his stories from the Jews'" and stresses twice that "against the lateand uncertain sources on the one hand, and the condemning authoritieson the other must be set the only contemporary and entirely authenticsource, The Qur'an." (Sura XXXIII, 26: "He caused those of the Peopleof the Book who helped them (i.e. the Quraysh) to come out of theirforts. Some you killed, some you took prisoner." [as quoted by Arafatj).?If 600 or 700 people were killed there would have been a clearer refer-ence to it in the Qur'an; as only the guilty leaders were executed thereference in the Qur'an is very brief - argues Arafat. He rejects withouthesitation the widely circulated story about the massacre of the BaniiQurayza and reiterates his argument: the verse of the Qur'an indicatesclearly that only those men of Qurayza who were actually fighting were

free from blame. The real culprit in this tragedy, for it was a most horrible tragedy... wasHuyayy b. Akhtab... " Ameer Ali, A short history of the Saracens, London 1961, p. 13: "It wasconsidered unsafe to leave the traitorous Banu Koraiza so near the city, as their treachery mightat any moment lead to the destruction of Medina... This was a severe punishment accordingto our ideas, but it was customary according to the rules of war then prevalent." MuhammadHamidullah, Muslim Conduct of State, Lahore 1961, §443: "... The females and children of theJewish tribe of Banu Quraizah were, by the decision of the arbitrator nominated by themselves,enslaved and distributed as booty. This arbitral award was in conformity with the Jewishpersonal Jaw... "; §497: "... In the case of the Banu Quraizah, it was the arbitrator of their ownchoice who awarded exactly what Deuteronomy provided... "

4 W.N. Arafat, "New Light on the Story of Banu Qurayza and the Jews of Medina,"JRAS (1976), 100-107.

5 Arafat, op. cit., pp. 101, U. 1-2.6 Arafat, op. cit., pp, 10I, 1. 8, 102 ult. -103 1.1, 106 U. 2-3.7 Arafat, op. cit., pp. 1011. 20, 103 1I. 11-15.

65

executed; according to the rule of Islam only those responsible for thesedition were punished. Killing a large number of people is opposed tothe Islamic sense of justice and the Qur'anic rule regarding prisoners,argues Arafat. Why should the Qurayza have been slaughtered, asksArafat, while other Jewish groups which surrendered both before andafter the Banu Qurayza were treated leniently and were allowed to go. Ifso many hundreds of people were indeed put to death in the market-placeand trenches were dug for the operation, why, asks Arafat, is thereno trace of all that and no sign or word to point to the place? "Had thisslaughter actually happened", contends Arafat, "the jurists would haveadopted it as a precedent"; "in fact exactly the opposite had been thecase" - asserts Arafat. Arafat stresses further that the details of thestory imply inside knowledge, i.e. from the Jews themselves. Both thedescendants of the Banii Qurayza and the descendants of the MedinanMuslims were eager to glorify their ancestors; it was one of the descen-dants of Sacd b. Mu-adh who transmitted the judgment of Sa-d and thesaying of the Prophet to Sad: "You have pronounced God's judgmentupon them [as inspired] through Seven Veils"." Finally Arafat raisessome additional questions: how could many hundreds of persons be incar-cerated in a house belonging to a woman of the Banu l-Najjar, and howcan one explain the fact that some Jews are mentioned as remaining inMedina after the alleged expulsion of all the Jewish tribes?

Arafat draws a comparison between the story of Masada as recordedby Josephus Flavius and the story of the Banu Qurayza. Arafat's conclu-sions are surprising: the descendants of the Jews who fled to Arabia afterthe Jewish wars superimposed details of the siege of Masada on the storyof the siege of the Banu Qurayza. According to Arafat, the mixture provi-ded the basis for Ibn Ishaq's story.

Arafat's article was followed by another one by a certain Zaid. Inhis article entitled "The Masada Legend in Jewish and Islamic Tradi-tion"? the author reiterates Arafat's arguments, arrives at the same con-

8 Arafat's rendering of this sentence is erroneous: min fauqi sao Cati arqi <atin does notmean "Seven Veils". Guillaume translates: "You have given the judgment of Allah above theseven heavens." Montgomery Watt, "The Condemnation of the Jews of Banu Qurayzah", MW42 (1952), p. 163: "You have judged their case with the judgment of God from above sevenheavens."

9 IQ, vols. XX-XXII (1978), 94-103.

66

c1usions and does not add any genuine opinion of his own. It seems thusthat this article does not deserve any comment.

The daring assumptions put forth by Arafat and summarized aboveought to be investigated. Data about the events surrounding the massa-cre of Banu Qurayza should be re-examined and certain traditions ana-lysed and re-assessed.

IIFour of Arafat's twelve arguments are of particular importance and havein fact a common denominator: the data of the story of Qurayza stand,according to Arafat, in contradiction to Muslim rules, Muslim law, Mus-lim justice and Qur'anic principles. The rule in Islam, says Arafat, is topunish only those who are responsible for sedition (argument no. 2); kill-ing such a large number of people is diametrically opposed to the Islamicsense of justice and to the basic principles laid down in the Qur'an (argu-ment no. 3); the slaughter of prisoners is against the Qur'anic rule whichorders that they either be granted their freedom or else be allowed tobe ransomed (argument no. 4); had this slaughter actually happened,maintains Arafat, jurists would have adopted it as a precedent; in factexactly the opposite has happened (argument no. 7). In order to strength-en arguments nos. 3 and 7, Arafat quotes Qur'an XXXV, 18: "No soulshall bear another's burden." If these four arguments put forward byArafat are valid and sound - they would prove convincingly that thereports about Sa'd b. Mu-adh's judgment, its approval by the Prophetand the cruel massacre of the Banu Qurayza are all ficticious. If Ara-fat's arguments are true, then indeed no Muslim jurist could have basedhis judgment on an account totally alien to the spirit of Muslim law andcontrary to Muslim justice and Muslim ethics.

Arafat's arguments are however unfounded, his conclusions incorrect.nd his opinion about Stra tradition is misappreciative. Muslim juristswere well acquainted with the story of the Banu Qurayza and basedthemselves in their judgments and decrees on the account of the massa-cre. It was in fact al-Shiifi"i (d. 204 A.H.) who with deep insight ana-lysed the case of Banii Qurayza, defined the nature of their mischievousactions, assessed the character of the transgression committed by themand elucidated the problem of individual and collective punishment. In apassage entitled "Violation of an agreement" (naqdu l-sahdiv Shiifi"isays:

Banu Qurayza 67

If the Imam concludes with a people an agreement of non-agrcssion iwada:a- K.) for a (certain) period or he receives from a people jizya and the per-son or persons who concluded the agreement of muwadaa or of the jizyaon behalf of the people belong to that people we shall not oblige them(i.e. those who concluded the agreement, sci!. to carry out the stipulations ofthe agreement - K.) until we know that those who remained (i.e. the peoplewho stayed in their abode while their leaders concluded the agreement - K.)

approved of it and were satisfied with it thatta na'l ama anna man baqiyaminhum qad aqarra bi-dhalik a wa-radiyahu). If this is so, no one fromamong the Muslims is permitted to take from them (anything - K.) of theirproperty or [harm them in their] body (literally: wa-daman, "of theirblood"); if a Muslim commits it (a mischievous deed of this kind - K.) hehas to be indicted for what he spent (from the property which he took un-justly) as long as the people (who concluded the agreement - K.) remainupright. If those who concluded the agreement violate it, or if a group fromamong them violate it and the people (who concluded the treaty - K.) donot oppose the violators by an open action or word (wa-Iam yukhalifu al-naqid bi-qaulin au fi'lin zahirin) before they (i.e. the righteous - K.) cometo the Imam or leave the territory (in which the violators stay - K.) andinform the Imam that they are continuing to adhere to the agreement tinna'ala sulhinai; or if the violators go out to fight the Muslims or to fight thepeople under their protection (i.e. under the protection of the Muslims, ahldhimmat li-I-muslimin) and aid thus the fighting men (i.e. of the enemy - K.)

or help (the forces - K.) fighting them (i.e. those who fight the Muslims - K.)

then the Imam is entitled to raid them. If he does it and there is nobody ofthe people (who opposed the violators - K.) who would (leave their abode -K.) and come out to the Imam - it is up to the Imam to (order to - K.) killtheir fighting men (qatlu muqatilatihim), to enslave their progeny and to taketheir property as booty, whether they be in the dar al-islam or in the territoryof of the enemy. So the Prophet acted in the case of the Banu Qurayza: heconcluded with their leader an agreement of reconciliation on the basis of atruce (al-sulb bi-l-muhadanas and (their leader) violated it; but they did notabandon him (wa-lam yufariquhu'i. The Prophet then went out to fight themin their own abode which was in the extreme part of Medina (wa-hiya ma'ahubi-tarafi I-madina) and killed their fighting men (fa-qatala muqatilatahumsand captured their property as booty; and (that while - K.) not all of themtook part in aiding (sci!. the Ahzab - K.) against the Prophet and his Com-panions, but all of them remained in their stronghold and did not abandonthe treacherous people from among them, except a small party tnafar) andthis (action) saved their lives and kept their possessions in their hands.'?10 Al-Shafi-t, al-Umm, n.p. 1321 (repr. Kitab al-sha'b 1388 (1968) IV, 107).

68

It is evident that according to the judgment of al-Shafi'T the Muslim lawenjoins punishing people who were not responsible for breaking theagreement, but who merely remained passive in the territory occupied bythe transgressors; this rule contradicts Arafat's argument no. 2. It is ob-vious that people who do not revolt against their iniquitous leaders andjoin the righteous party (i.e. the Muslim community - K.) may be put todeath by order of the Imam; this is in fact contrary to Arafat's argumentno. 3. It is apparent that the Banu Qurayza who surrendered did notenjoy the status of prisoners of war; this is, of course, contrary to Ara-fat's argument no. 4. AI-ShaficT considered the report about the slaughterof the Banu Qurayza reliable and sound and he based his judgment on it;this contradicts Arafat's argument no. 7.

In order to reinforce his argument that Muslim jurists did not adoptthe case of Banu Qurayza as a precedent and championed ideas totallyopposed to those reflected in the story of the slaughter of the Banu Qur-ayza, Arafat quotes a judgment of al-Auza-t as recorded in AbuCUbayd's Amwal. But Arafat seems to have been unaware of the factthat it was the selfsame Abu <Ubayd al-Qasirn b. Sallarn (d. 224 A.H.)who in his Amwal recorded carefully the traditions about the "Day ofQurayza" with their isnads and attached his own valuable legal com-ments. Abu 'Ubayd records the tradition about the execution of Huyayyb. Akhtab: Huyayy concluded a treaty (Ciihada) with the Prophet com-mitting himself not to aid anybody against the Prophet. On the "Day ofthe Banu Qurayza" he was captured and brought into the presence ofthe Prophet. The Prophet ordered that he and his son be killed. AbuCUbayd comments:

The Prophet declared the shedding of the blood of Qurayza lawful becausethey extended their help against him (li-muzaharatihim) to the Ahzab,after they had concluded a treaty with him. The Prophet considered it aviolation of their treaty tfa-ra 'a dhalika nakthan li-Cahdihim) although theydid not kill anyone of his Companions (wa-in kanu lam yaqtulu min ashabihiahadam. A verse concerning this was revealed in Sural al-Ahzab (wa-nazalabi-dhalika l-qur'an fi surati 'l-ahzab), II

Arafat did not realize that the widely circulated traditions about themassacre of the Banu Qurayza (the report about the appearance of Ji-

II AbU <Ubayd, Kitiib al-amwal, ed. Muhammad Hamid al-Fiqi, Cairo.

Banu Qurayza 69

bril, the siege, the judgment of Sa-d b. Mu-adh and details about thenumbers of the killed) were recorded by Abii "Ubayd: 12 it is precisely thematerial discussed by Arafat in his article and it clearly contradicts hisassumptions; the contents of the reports are almost identical with thoseof the Sira of Ibn Ishaq, the isnads are different and Abii -Ubayd, thegreat Muslim jurist, records those traditions as precedents as regardsMuslim jurisdiction.

Another eminent Muslim jurist, al-Mawardi (d. 450 A.H.), eluci-dates the slaughter of the Banii Qurayza from a quite different aspect: itwas a religious duty incumbent on the Prophet to order the slaughter ofthe Banii Qurayza. Al-Mawardi emphasizes, among the other virtues ofthe Prophet, his leniency, kindness and his disposition to forgive his en-emies their sins. He then continues as follows:"

If it is argued: "He struck the heads of the Banii Qurayza deliberately dur-ing one day (fa-in qila: fa-qad daraba riqaba bant qurayzata sabran jr yau-min wahidini, their number being about seven hundred, so where is his dis-position to forgive and pardon? After all he retaliated like a man who wasnot inclined towards them by mercy, nor had in his soul softness for them",the answer would be: " He merely did it in order to carry out the rules ofGod (incumbent upon him) ( ... qila: innama fa-ala dhalika jr huquqi llahita'ula). The Banii Qurayza had consented to Sa'd b. Mu'adh's arbitrationin their case and hejudged that those on whom the razors passed (i.e. thosewho reached puberty - K.)14 should be killed; those on whom the razors didnot pass should be enslaved". Then the Prophet said: "This is God's judg-ment (issued - K.) from above the seven heavens". Therefore it was notpermitted (the Prophet - K.) to forgive (in a case of) God's injunction in-cumbent upon them; he could merely forgive (transgressions, offences etc. -K.) in matters concerning his own person (fa-lam yajuz an ya'fuwa 'an haq-qin wajaba llahu ta'ala 'alayhim, wa-innama yakhtassu "afwuhu bi-haqqinafsihiv.

It is thus obvious that the slaughter of the Banii Qurayza and the execu-tion of those among them who had reached puberty was carried out ac-

12 Al-Amwal, pp. 129-130 (nos. 346-350), 167 (nos. 460-463).13 Al-Mawardi, A clam al-nubuwwa, Cairo 1319, pp. 146-147.14 See the different versions: Barakat Ahmad, Muhammad and the Jews, New Delhi

1979, pp. 81-82.

70

cording to the order of God revealed to the Prophet. Al-Mawardi's opin-ion apparently reflects the current Sunni view about the slaughter of theBanu Qurayza.

The report about the presence of the Prophet at the execution of thecaptives of Qurayza is fully confirmed by the great Muslim scholar IbnHazm (d. 456 A.H.):14a "It is impossible (to assume - K.) that peoplecould have been killed in the presence of the Prophet, while he would notknow whether the execution was right or not. A Muslim can never as-sume this, as the Qurayza people were killed in his presence and at hisorder. (Qala abu muhammadin: wa-mina l-muhali l-mumtani"i an tuqtalal-nasu bi-hadrati l-nabiyyi salla llahu "alayhi wa-sallama, wa-huwa taya'Iamu a-bi-haqqin am bi-batilin; hadha ma la yazunnuhu muslimunul-battata. wa-qatla qurayzata qutilu bi-hadrati l-nabiyyi (s) wa-bi-amrihi.)

One of Arafat's arguments for the rejection of the story of the BanuQurayza (argument no. 5) is that "it is unlikely that the Banu Qurayzashould be slaughtered when the other Jewish groups who surrenderedbefore Banu Qurayza and after them were treated leniently and allowedto go." The answer is plainly given by Ibn Qayyim al-Jauziyya. He men-tions the expulsion of the Qaynuqa- and the Nadir, and the confiscationof their possessions and states:

As to Qurayza, they were the strongest among the Jews in their hatred ofthe Prophet and the most persistent in their unbelief; therefore their fatediffered from that of their brethren. (wa-ammii qurayzatu fa-kanat ashaddal-yahudi "adawatan li-rasuli llahi (s) wa-aghlazahum kufran wa-li-dhalika jara"alayhim mii lam yajri "ala ikhwanihim. )15

Since Arafat quotes in his article this compilation of Ibn Qayyim al-Jauziyya, it is odd indeed that he should have overlooked this passage.

In order to strengthen his argument that the Prophet was lenienttowards Jewish tribes, groups and clans Arafat mentions the case of theclan of Abu l-Huqayq: when the Prophet conquered Khaybar he prom-ised the Jews of this locality safety (aman) on condition that they hand-ed him over everything (of value - K.) in the stronghold. The utterance

148 Ibn Hazm, al-Ihkam fi usuli l-ahkam, ed. Muhammad Ahmad cAbd al-cAziz, Cairo1398/1978, V-VIII, 897 inf.

15 Ibn Qayyim al-Jauziyya, Ziid al-ma/iid fi hadyi khayri l-sibad, Beirut n.d., II , 72, U.6-7.

Banu Qurayza 71

of the Prophet quoted by Arafat 16 indicates that in spite of the hostilityof the clan of Abu I-Huqayq he would grant them safety, as he hadgranted their brethren, if they would hand him over all their property. Infact a treasure belonging to the Banu I-Huqayq was detected. TheProphet then ordered to torture one of the sons of Abu I-Huqayq and tokill the others. The women and children of the executed sons of Abu 1-Huqayq were enslaved, and their property confiscated.!? The attitude ofthe Prophet towards the clan of Abo l-Huqayq can hardly be described aslenient although the Prophet's order can formally be justified: as one ofthe sons of Abu I-Huqayq did not disclose the place of the family's trea-sure he thereby violated the terms of the surrender; this was considereda violation of an agreement and the Prophet was entitled to have him putto death." It may be worthwhile to remark that Kinana b. Abi I-Huqayq,whom the Prophet ordered to torture and who was executed after thetorture by al-Zubayr, was the husband of the captured woman Safiyyawhom the Prophet married on the night of her husband's execution.Huyayy b. Akhtab, killed by order of the Prophet during the massacre ofthe Banu Qurayza, was Safiyya's father."

The legal basis for the torture, the execution and the confiscation ofthe property of the Banii I-Huqayq is plainly outlined in one of the earli-est compilations of Muslim law, the Siyar of al-Shaybani (d. 189A.H.).20 The case of the clan of Abu I-Huqayq is related in a specialchapter entitled: "Safety (granted) on condition" tal-aman <ala l-shart].Al-Shaybani concludes that if the enemy is conditionally granted safetyby the Muslims and then acts treacherously or conceals from them theobject (scil. which was to be handed over under the terms of the agree-ment - K.) the imam is permitted to kill the enemy." AI-Sarakhsi.

16 Arafat, op. cit., p. 104, argument no. 5.17 See Abo "Ubayd, op. cit., pp. 165-166 (nos. 457-459); Ibn Qayyim al-Jauziyya, op. cit.,

II, 76-77; al-Taban, Ta'rikh, ed. Muhammad Abu I-FaQl Ibrahim, Cairo 1969, III, 14; al-Baladhuri, Fund: al-buldan, ed. "Abdallah and CUmar al-Tabba", Beirut 1377/1957, 34-35;al-Waqidi, al-Maghazi , ed. Marsden Jones, London 1966, pp. 672-673.

18 Abu CUbayd, op. cit., p. 168, no. 463: .... .fa-hadha ma kana min nakthi bani quray-zata wa-bihi stahalla rasulu llahi (s) dima'ahum; wa-kadhalika alu abi l-huqayqi, ra'akitmanahum iyyahu ma sharatu lahu an la yaktumuhu nakthan. "

19 See e.g. Ibn Hajar, al-Isaba fi tamyizi l-sahaba, ed. CAliMuhammad al-Bijawt, Cairo1392/1972, VII, 738-742, no. 11401.

20 Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Shaybani, Kitab al-siyar al-kabir, ed. Salah al-Din al-Munajjid, Cairo 1957, I, 278-282.

21 Al-Shaybant, op. cit., I, 278.

72

raises in his comment the question whether the Prophet issued this orderof torture before or after he had uttered the prohibition of torture."

The killing of the captured fighting men of the enemy is explicitlypermitted. Al-Shaybani records the case of the Banu Qurayza as a con-vincing precedent: they were put to death on the order of the Prophetafter they had been captured and after hostilities had ceased." Theproblem discussed concerns the permissiblity of killing the captured en-emy while his hands are tied. Al-Shaybani decrees that it is preferable toexecute the captured enemy with his hands free; but if there is a dangerthat he may escape or kill a Muslim, he has to be executed with hishands tied." al-Shaybani emphasizes that the suffering of the capturedought to be alleviated by providing them with food and water; here, too,al-Shaybani has recourse to the precedent of the Banu Qurayza: theProphet ordered that the Qurazi captives be provided with dates," beallowed to rest at mid-day and that their execution be delayed so as notto coincide with the hottest part of the day." The alleviation of the cap-tives' suffering is also recorded in the chapter dealing with the judg-ment of a Muslim to whom the fate of the captive ahl al-harb had beenentrusted on the basis of their consent to his arbitration." The chapterdeals in fact with the judgment of Sa'd b. Mu-adh and the Prophet'sapproval of his decree. One of the problems touched upon is the age atwhich the fighting men of the enemy forces may be subjected to thedeath penalty. According to the decree of Sa'd b. Mu'adh (fighting) per-sons of Qurayza had to be put to death if they reached the age of puber-ty." Al-Shaybani's opinion is different: he points out that there are dif-ferences in the age of puberty between various peoples (for instancebetween Turks and Indians). But in the case of Bam} Qurayza the

22 Al-Shaybani, op. cit., I, 280.23 Al-Shaybani, op. cit., III, 1024-1025 twa-daliluna -ala jawazi I-qatli ba vda I-asri qis-

satu bani qurayzata, fa-qad qatalahum rasulu llahi M basda I-asri wa-batda ma wadasatil-harbu auzarahai. This rejects the argument (no. 4) of Arafat about the prohibition to killprisoners of war.

24 Al-Shaybanl, op. cit., III, 1026, no. 1991.25 Al-Shaybant, op. cit., III, 1029, ult.: wa-qad kana amara rasidu llahi M bi-ahmali

l-tamri fa-nuthinu bayna aydihim.fa-kanu yakdumunaha kadma l-humuri, Al-Waqidi (p, 513)has the same expression: fa-batu yakdumunaha kadma l-humur . It probably refers to the fact~~~~~~-~=~~~~~~~~

26 Al-Shaybani, op. cit., III, 1029.27 Al-Shaybani, op. cit., II, 587-592.28 Al-Shaybani, op. cit., II, 590.

73

Prophet disclosed to Sa-d b. MuCiidh (on the basis of a revelation) thattheir age of puberty was the limit of their penal responsiblity as fightingpersons." cUmar is said to have ordered the commanders of the (M us-lim) troops to kill (as in the case of Qurayza - K.) every person onwhom the razor had passed and to refrain from capturing anyone of theunbelievers.'? AI-SarakhsT quotes a passage from the maghazr-compila-tions (... wa-ft l-maghazt. .. ) according to which CAli and al-Zubayrcarried out the execution of the captured Qurazts. He records two differ-ent versions concerning the number of those killed (700 men were exe-cuted; according to Muqatil: 450 were killed, 650 were enslaved) andmentions the place where the Qurazis were put to death: at the dar abil-jahm; their blood flowed until it reached ahjar al-zayt. 31 This in fact isthe place which is mentioned by al-Waqidr" and al-Samhudi." It isworthwhile to point out that al-Samhudi quotes the report of Musa b.CUqba who stated that the execution of the Banu Qurayza was carriedout at the dar abt l-jahm (it was close to the balm; but - al-Sarnhudlsays - the balat did not exist at that time): "some people claimed thattheir blood flowed and reached the ahjar al-zayt (the olive trees) whichwere in the market.">'

The references quoted above from the compilations of al-Shaybant,al-Shafi'T, Abu <Ubayd and al-Mawardi show that the early scholars ofMuslim law and jurisprudence were well acquainted with the literatureof the sira and maghazi. The early jurists availed themselves of the tradi-tions of the maghazi; having examined some of the chapters of the com-pilation of al-Shaybani referring to the story of the Banu Qurayza wecould see how every detail was closely studied and analysed. The eventsof this expedition served as precedents, conclusions were duly drawn and

29 Al-Shaybani, op. cit., II, 591.30 Al-Shaybani, op. cit., II, 592: wa-dhukira can -umara (r) annahu kataba ita umara'i

al-ajnadi an: uatulu man jarat <alayhi l-musa wa-la tasbu ilayna mina l-suluji ahadan.31 Al-Shaybanl, op. cit., II, 592, sup.32 Al-Waqidt, op. cit., p. 513, n. 6-7.33 See al-Samhudt, WqfQ'u l-wafa bi-akhbari dari l-mustafa, ed. Muhammad Muhyt

l-Dm cAbd al-Hamid, Cairo 1374/1955, pp. 744 inf. - 745, 1121-1123; and see Abu l-BaqaMuhammad Baha' l-Din b. al-Diya' al-Makki al-Qurashi l-cUman l_cAdaWi, AlJwtil Makkawa-l-madina, MS. Br. Mus. Or. 11865, fol. 172a: wa-nazala rasulu lltihi (s) <ala kulthum b.al-hidmi; wa-fi hadhihi l-harrati qiratun tusamma ahjara l-zayti, summiyat bihi li-sawadialJjtirihti ka-annaha tuliyat bi-I-zayti, wa-huwa maudi-un kana yastaqirru fihi rasidu llah! (s);wa-batduhum yaqidu: ahjaru l-bayt, wa-dhalika khata'un.

34 Al-Samhudi, op. cit., p. 745 sup.

74

rules of the Muslim law of war were moulded according to these prece-dents. Al-Shaybani was in fact a student of Abu Hanlfa, al-Awza'T, AbuYusuf and Malik b. Anas. He was a scholar of immense knowledge, pen-etrating mind and deep isight; yet in his Siyar he did not hesitate to basehimself completely on the compilations of the maghazi.

The close links between fiqh and maghazi can be gauged from thefact that the famous qadi Abu Yusuf (d. 182 A.H.) attended the council(majlis) of Muhammad b. Ishaq and heard from him the maghazt.v Thereport about the Banu Qurayza and Sa-d b. Mu-adh's judgment is givenby Abu Yusuf on the authority of Ibn Ishaq and is followed by a de-tailed discussion of the various possibilities of the decree of the arbiter. 36

Malik b. Anas had an interest in maghazf-literature and recommendedthe maghazt of Musa b. CUqba (d. 141 A.H.) whom he considered areliable transmitter." Fiqh and maghazi were even subjects of competi-tion among Muslim jurists. In a mudhakara-competition between Malikand al-Auza-l in Medina, Malik b. Anas beat Auza-t on the subject offiqh, but Auza'T had the upper hand on the subject of maghazt."

*Arafat also raises some minor questions 39 and dwells at length upon Ibnlshaq's transmission of the maghazt tradition. As already mentioned IbnIshaq is accused of transmitting dubious traditions derived from unrelia-ble authorities.

35 Al-Musafa b. Zakariya, al-Jalis al-salih al-kafi wa-I-anis al-nasih al-shafi, TopkapiSaray, MS. Ahmet III, 2321, fol. 134a.

36 AbU Yusuf, Kitab al-kharaj, Cairo 1382, pp. 201-204.37 Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Jarh wa-l-tardil, Hyderabad 1371/1952, Taqdima p. 22; vol. VIII,

154.38 Ibn Kathtr, al-Bidaya wa-l-nihaya, Beirut - al-Riyad, 1966, X, 116.39 How could so many hundreds of persons (scil. of the Banu Qurayza) be incarcerated

in the house belonging to a woman of Banu l-Najjar - asks Arafat (op. cit., p. 105, argumentno. II). But dar does not only denote "a house"; it often denotes a compound building,sometimes of considerable dimensions, containing in certain cases stores, workshops, maga-zines and even markets. (See M.J. Kister, "Some Reports Concerning Mecca," JESHO XV(1972), 85-86 [about the dur <translated "courts"> bought by Mu-awiya]; and see ib. p. 86,no. I; and see e.g. Ibn Hajar, al-Isaba, V, 744, sup.: the court (dar) known as dar bani nasrin Damascus was a church (kanisat al-nasaray; Malik b. <Aufalighted there at the beginningof the Muslim conquest of Damascus; therefore the court was known as dar bani nasr.s It isquite possible that some hundreds of people could be incarcerated in such a dar. (See aboutthe dar bint al-harith: al-Suhayli, al-Raud al-unuf, ed, cAbd al-Rahman al-Wakil, Cairo1390/1970, VI, 333-334).

75

In the case of the Banu Qurayza both the descendants of Sa'd b.Mucadh and the descendants of the Jews who converted to Islam areaccused by Arafat of inventing tendentious traditions transmitted andrecorded by Ibn Ishaq.t"

Concerning the judgment of Sa-d b. Mucadh one may remark thatIbn Ishaq was certainly not the only scholar who transmitted this tradi-tion. Montgomery Watt's important article "The Condemnation of theJews of Banu Qurayzah'"" contains rich material about the transmittersof this tradition. A glance at the article shows convincingly that thereexisted not just one tradition, namely the one transmitted by Ibn Ishaq;there were in fact many. Moreover, the tradition is recorded in the veryearly compilations, some of them contemporary with that of Ibn lshaq,in Qur'an commentaries, in later compilations in which early sourceswere quoted, in compendia of fiqh and in hadith collections." It is obvi-ous that there were many sources for the tradition about the Banu Qur-ayza. In his instructive article "The Materials used by Ibn lshaq" Mont-gomery Watt rightly points out that "the criticism of Ibn Ishaq that hetook material from Jews and Christians reflects the later attitude of sus-picion towards such sources and the tendency to avoid them (at least intheory)."43 The utterance of Malik b. Anas about Ibn lshaq as it is re-corded by Arafat from Ibn Sayyid al-Nas is in fact a combined sayingblended together in a later period. The story about the enmity betweenMalik b. Anas and Ibn Ishaq has it that Ibn Ishaq spoke with disdainabout Malik's compilation and said: "Lay the knowledge of Malik beforeme, I will handle it as a surgeon". Thereupon Malik said: "Look at thisdajjal of the dajajila, are my books to be in front of him?"44 Malik's

40 Arafat, op. cit., p. 105, argument no. 10.41 MW 42 (1952), 160-171.

\ 42 See e.g. -Abd al-Razzaq, al-Musannaf, ed. Habiburrahman al-A'zamt, Beirut1'392/1972,V, 360, no. 9733; 367-372 no. 9737; VI, 54, no. 9988; Ibn Sa'd, Tabaqat , BeirutI380/1960, II, 74-77, III, 420-436; al-Taban, Tafsir, ed. Shakir, Cairo 1958,XIV, 21-26,35-36,44; XXI (Biilaq), 95-97; al-Waqidi, op. cit., 496-531.

43 B. Lewis and S.M. Holt (ed.) Historians of the Middle East, London 1964, p. 33.44 Al-Fasawi, al-Masrifa wa-l-ta'rikh, ed. Akram Diya' aI-cUman, Beirut 1401/1981, III,

32; Ibn CAdiyy,al-Kamil fi du-afa'i l-rijal, MS. Ahmet III, 2943/3, fo1.25b, 26b, 27a; Ibn AbiHatim, Taqdimat al-jarh, p. 20; Yaqut, Musjam al-udaba', ed. A.F. Rifii9, Cairo 1358/1938,XVIII, 7 inf. - 8 sup.; J. Horovitz, "The Earliest Biographies of the Prophet and their Authors",tc (1928), p, 171; al-Khatib, Ta'rikh Baghdad, Cairo 1349/1931, I, 224 sup.; al-Dhahabi,Tadhkirat al-l)uffo?, Hyderabad 1375/1955, I, 173.

76

answer indicates his contempt of Ibn Ishaq and his lack of respect forIbn Ishaq's knowledge. According to another version Malik was informedthat Ibn Ishaq prided himself on being the surgeon of the maghazi; Ma-lik commented: "He told you that he was a surgeon of it? We expelledhim from Medina.?" In this utterance Malik points to Ibn Ishaq's igno-rance, his lies, his lack of belief and other vices which caused the schol-ars of Medina to expel him from the city. Ibn Ishaq was indeed accusedof many faults like: shi"i leanings, qadari beliefs, transmission of sifa:traditions," playing with cocks," tadlis in transmission." and of coursetransmission of unreliable traditions, especially traditions of the descen-dants of Jews who had embraced Islam. The only version in which theutterance of Malik about Ibn Ishaq as an impostor (dajjiil min "al-dajiijila) is coupled with the accusation that he transmitted traditions ofthe descendants of Jewish converts to Islam is the version recorded by IbnSayyid al-Nas,49 and quoted by Arafat.

The assumption that the enmity between Malik and Ibn Ishaq wascaused mainly (or even solely) by the fact that Ibn Ishaq disseminatedtraditions of Jewish converts to Islam seems an oversimplification. Themain cause for the antagonism is indicated in the report of Ibn Sayyid

45 Ibn Abi Hatim, Taqdima, p. 19 inf.; al-Khatib, op. cit., I, 223; Ibn Abi Hatim, al-Jarhwa-l-tadil, vol. III 2 (= vol. 7 repr.) p. 192 inf., no. 1087; Ibn Khallikan, Wafayat al-a=yan,ed. Ihsan <Abbas, Beirut 1971, IV, 277, 612; and see H.R. Idns, "Reflexions sur Ibn Ishaq",Studia Islamica XVII (1962), 29-30.

46 See e.g. al-Dhahabi, al-tUluww li-i-taliyyi l-ghaffar , ed. <Abd al-Rahman MuhammadCUthman, Cairo 1388/1968, pp. 108-109 (and see pp. 70-72); cf. al-Bayhaqi, al-Asma' wa-I-sifiu, ed. Muhammad Zahid al-Kauthari, Cairo 1358, pp. 397-398; cf. al-Dhahabi, Siyar a clamal-nubala', ed. Salah al-Din al-Munajjid, Cairo n.d. I, 205, 206, 212-215 (see esp. p. 215 inf.);al-CAyni, Umdat al-qari, Cairo 1348, XVI, 268; al-Fasawi, op. cit., I, 137 (Makki b. Ibrahimdisliked the traditions of Ibn Ishaq about the sifa).

47 See al-Dhahabi, Tadhkirat al-huffiiz, I, 173.48 Ibn Abi Hatirn, al-Jarh, VII, 194, 1. I.49 Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, sUyun al-athar fi funun al-maghazi wa-I-siyar, Cairo 1356, 1,16

inf.-17 sup. tdajjalun mina I-dajiijila yarwi sani l-yahudv; Ibn Sayyid al-Nas stresses that Malikdid not find fault with Ibn Ishaq's activity of transmission of hadith, but he criticized severelyhis transmission of reports about the raids and expeditions against the Jewish tribes, based onthe accounts of the "Children of the Jews" who converted to Islam. According to Yaqut (op.cit., XVIII, 8) Ibn Ishaq used to transmit on the authority of Jews and Christians and used torefer to them in his compilations as "ahlu l-silmi l-awwal". A witty anecdote is recorded by IbnCAdiyy: Ibn Ishaq said: "the reliable transmitter told me" thaddathani I-thiqa). When askedabout who was the transmitter he answered: "The Jew Yasqub" (Ibn CAdiyy, op. cit., Ill, 26b,sup.).

Banu Qurayza 77

al-Nas: Ibn Ishaq surpassed every scholar in the Hijaz in his knowledgeof the tribal strifes and tribal genealogy. He claimed that Malik had tobe counted as a maula of the Dhii Asbah; Malik stated that he was agenuine descendant of this clan. When Malik completed the compilationof the Muwatta' Ibn Ishaq asked for it to be brought to him for examina-tion, since he had said that he would be its surgeon. Malik respondedwith the contemptuous comment quoted above.50The genealogical dis-cussion seems to have been heated, as it touched upon the status of Ma-lik and humiliated his ancestors: Ibn Ishaq claimed that these ancestorshad come to Medina as a group of clients of Taym (mawalti, not as theirallies thulafai,"

Ibn Ishaq was, however, not the first scholar who questioned thetruth of Malik's pedigree. He was preceded in this matter by the highlyrespected traditionist Sa-d b. Ibrahim (d. ca 125 A.H.),52 the grandsonof cAbd al-Rahrnan b. cAuf, the distinguished companion of the Prophet.Sa'd's criticism of Malik's pedigree brought about a clash between the twoscholars. This fact can be deduced from a peculiar conversation withAhmad b. Hanbal in which he said that Malik did not transmit tradi-tions reported by Sa-d b. Ibrahim because "there was a story betweenthem" (kana lahu maa sa-din qissatun); then Ahmad said: "Sa-d didnot care that Malik did not transmit his reports.t'" More details aboutthe reasons for the enmity between the two scholars can be gleaned fromthe answer given by Yahya (b. Ma'rn - K.) who questioned whetherthe reason of Malik's reluctance to transmit Sa-d's hadtths was not thatSa-d was suspect of being a believer in qadar. Yahya explained: Sacd didnot believe in qadar; Malik merely refrained from transmitting on hisauthority because he criticized the reliability of his nasab (li-annahu ta-

50 Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, op. cit., I, 16, inf.; H.R. Idris, op. cit., p. 29-30.51 See the lengthy passage on the problem: aI-QaQiCIyac;!,Tartib al-madarik wa-taqrib

al-masalik li-ma'rifau a-lam madhhab malik, ed. Ahmad Bakir Mahmud, Beirut 1388/1968,I, 102-107; and see the references in F. Sezgin, GAS I, 458.

52 See e.g, the opinions of Ahmad b. Hanbal about Sa-d: Ahmad b. Hanbal, al-sllalwa-ma/rifatu l-rijal, ed. Tal-at Kocyigit and Isma91 Cerrahoglu, Ankara 1963, I, 278 sup.:sasdu bnu ibrahima athbatu min sumara bni salamata khamsina marratan; and see about himIbn cAsakir, Ta'rikh (Tahdhib), ed. cAbd al-Qadir Badran, Damascus 1399/1979, VI, 83; aI-Bukhart, al- Ta 'rikh al-kabir, Hyderabad 1384/1964, IV, 51, no. 1928;WakjC,Akhbar al-quda»,ed. cAbd aI-cAzjzMU$W'aal-Maraghi, Cairo 1366/1947, I, 150-167.

53 Al-Fasawt, al-Ma'rifa wa-l-ta'rikh, ed. Akram Diya' al-Fl.Imart,Beirut 1401/1981, I,411; and see Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-tahdhib, III, 465.

78

kallama jr nasabi malikv; it is therefore that Malik did not transmit onhis authority. 54 It is evident that Ibn Ishaq did not invent the suspicionsagainst Malik's pedigree, but merely quoted earlier reports which hadalready gained currency in Medina.

The accounts saying that the only reason for the enmity between Malikb. Anas and Muhammad b. Ishaq was the problem of Malik's pedigree areverified by a report transmitted by the well-known scholar of hadith,Baqiyy b. Makhlad (d. 276 A.H.)543 and recorded in the compilation ofAbu l-'Arab (d. 333 A.H.) "Kitab al-mihan", 54bBaqiyy relates a questionof Ya'qub b. Ibrahim b. Sa'd (d. 208 A.H.)54C addressed to his fatherIbrahim b. Sa'd b. Ibrahim (d. 183 A.H.).54d He inquired whether IbnIshaq was indeed affected by the vices and faults of which he was accusedby the people of Medina. Ibrahim denied it; Ibn Ishaq had the misfortuneto abide in Medina with its people. They charged him with foul deedsbecause he knew the pedigrees (of the people of Medina - K.); thus therewas no clan in Medina the pedigree of which Ibn Ishaq did not impeach.Therefore the people of Medina were hostile towards him. He (i.e. thegovernor of Medina) therefore seized him and ordered to flog him 100times. tqala: wa-haddathani yahya can baqiyyi bni makhladin can ya'qubabni ibrahima bni sa/din qala: sa'altu abi hal kana fi muhammadi bniishaqa mimma yuhaddithu bihi "anhu ahlu l-madinati; qala: la, wa-lakinnahu buliya bi-ahli l-madinati, kanu yushanni'una "alayhi wa-kanarajulan [text: rajul] ya "rifu l-ansab.fa-lam yakun fi ahli l-madinati bay tunilia wa-qad adkhala "alayhim fi ansabihim shay 'an, fa/iidahu ahlu 1-madinati fa-akhadhahu (sic!) wa-darabahu mi'ata saut)

The report of Ibrahim b. Sa'd is credible. He was a student of IbnIshaq and he recorded 17,000 legal traditions on the authority of Ibn Ishaqin addition to traditions of maghazi?"

It is quite natural, on this background, for Qac:ll CIyac:lto provide alist of several scholars denying the suspicions about the pedigree of Ma-lik, asserting that he was a genuine scion of the genuine tribe of theYemenite Dhii Asbah and adding that his clan was not a client of the

54 Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-tahdhib, III, 465.540 See on him F. Sezgin, GAS, I, 152, no. 97.54b MS. Cambridge Or. Qq. 235(8), fol. 142b.54c See on him: Ibn Hajar, Tahdhib al-tahdhib, XI, 380, no. 741.54d See on him F. Sezgin, GAS, I, 95, no. 14.54< Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, Ta'rikh baghdad, VI, 83.

Banu Qurayza 79

Taym b. Murra." In the same vein, some distinguished members ofTaym are said to have testified that the clan of Dhu Asbah, the ances-tors of Malik had an alliance with, and were no clients of, Taym.Y

It may be well to note that Malik seems to have referred in his con-temptuous comment merely to the faults of Ibn Ishaq's Stra compilation.This attitude on the part of a great scholar of Muslim law towards Stracompilations in general and towards that of Ibn Ishaq in particular is byno means surprising. Ibn "Adiyy (d. 360 A.H.) emphasized that it was IbnIshaq's virtue and merit to have engaged the kings in reading the magh-azt, the stories of the beginning of Creation and the beginning of theProphecy (of Muhammad - K.), thus distracting them from readingbooks of no import (Iii yahsulu minha shay'uns. In this he outdid otherscholars who fell short of his accomplishment. Ibn 'Adiyy states in hisconcluding sentence that the many traditions transmitted by Ibn Ishaqbecame widely current (wa-qad fashat ahadtthuhu l-kathtratuy; he (i.e.Ibn CAdiyy - K.) could however find in his traditions nothing whichmight be characterized as "weak" (fa-lam ajid ft ahadtthihi ma yata-haya'u an yuqta'a Calayhi bi-l-~a'fi)Y Ibn Duhaym, a maula of Malikadmitted that Malik called Ibn Ishaq dajjal merely because of the suspi-cion of his belief in qadar, not because of his transmissions of hadtthiqala abu zur' a al-dimashqiyyu: dhakartu duhayman maula malikinfa-ra'a anna dhalika laysa li-l-hadith, innama huwa li-annahu ttaha-mahu bi-l-qadaris," Ibn Ishaq may have erred or been mistaken likeothers, states Ibn CAdiyy; but reliable and distinguished transmitters ofhadtth did not refrain from reporting his traditions. The mark grantedhim by Ibn CAdiyy is "la ba'sa bihi".59

Rigorous Muslim scholars of jurisprudence and hadtth, who usuallydisplay a highly critical attitude, had indeed a very high opinion of IbnIshaq. Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728 A.H.), quoting a Sira tradition recorded byIbn Ishaq, marks him as a man possessing knowledge and a perceptive

55 See al-Qadi CIyaQ, op. cit., I, 104-105 (the readings Tamim b. Murra are erroneous:read correctly Taym b. Murrai.

56 Ibid., p. 105.57 Ibn CAdiyy, op. cit., III, 30b.58 Al-vlraqt, Tart; al-tathrib fi sharhi l-taqrib, Halab n.d., I, 98.59 Ibn CAdiyy, op. cit., III, 30b: wa-rubbama akhta'a au wahimafi l-shay'i basda I-shay'i

kama yukhti'u ghayruhu, wa-Iam yatakhallaf=anhu fi l-rtwayati <anhu l-thiqau wa-l-a'immatu,wa-huwa Iii ba'sa bihi.

80

mind in this matter (wa-huwa dhu "ilmin wa-basiratin bi-hadha l-sha'nii, aman who kept in his mind more (knowledge - K.) than anyone else."Ibn Hajar, in arguing against Ibn al-Jauzi who qualified Ibn Ishaq asmajruh (in connection with his transmission of a tradition with a clearShrt tendency about the death of Fatima) states that Ibn al-Jauzi's at-tack lacks substance; the leading scholars (of hadith - K.), according toIbn Hajar, accepted Ibn Ishaq's transmission and he was accused ofnothing worse than that he had transmitted on the authority of someunknown persons (majhultni and that he was a mudallis. Ibn Ishaq him-self was a truthful person and an authority in the field of maghazt thuj-jatun fi l-maghazti in the opinion of the people (scil. of hadith, cinda 1-jumhuri:"

One can hardly agree with Arafat as to the "glorification" of theirancestors by the descendants of Qurayza. They are described in the re-ports as wavering, undecided even in the most dangerous moments oftheir existence, stubborn and disobeying their leaders. Barakat Ahmaddiscussed the problem thoroughly in a lengthy passage in his book Mu-hammad and the Jews and concluded: "One might, however, ask in par-enthesis if Malik b. Anas' charge was fair. It shows a latter-day preju-dice against the Jewish converts. Why should they be less reliable thanthe sons of the pagan Arab converts?" etc." Watt is right indeed in hisassessment of the reports about Qurayza: "About the primary matters,the broad outlines of events, there is practically no doubt. The BanuQurayza were besieged and eventually surrendered; their fate was decid-ed by Sa'd: nearly all the men were executed; Muhammad did notdisapprove. "63

IIIA closer examination of the various reports about the expedition againstQurayza and their massacre may provide us with a clue to a better un-derstanding of some of the events and a deeper insight into the circum-

60 Ibn Taymiyya, al-Jawab al-sahih li-man baddala dina l-masih, ed. cAlial-Sayyid Subhal-Madani, Cairo 1383/1964, I, 92 ult.·93 1.1.

61 Ibn Hajar, al-Qaulu I-musaddadfi I-dhabbi <ani l-musnad li-l-imami ahmad, Hydera-bad 1386/1967, p. 62.

62 Barakat Ahmad, op. cit., p. 12; Montgomery Watt, The Materials, Historians, p. 33.63 Montgamery Watt, The condemnation, p. 171.

81

stances and causes which brought about the calamity of the BanuQurayza.

Usually the Banu Qurayza are accused of having violated their trea-ty with the Prophet. This accusation is stated clearly in the commentaryto Sura VIII (al-Anfal), 55 - 58:

Surely the worst beasts in God's sight are the unbelievers, who will not be-lieve, those of them with whom thou hast made compact, then they breaktheir compact every time, not being godfearing. So, if thou comest uponthem anywhere in the war, deal with them with such wise as to scatter theones behind them; haply they will remember. And if thou fearest treacheryany way at the hands of a people, dissolve it with them equally; surely Godloves not the treacherous.

(AJ. Arberry's translation)

Al-Tabari comments on "those of them with whom thou hast made com-pact, then they break their compact every time": "You, Muhammad,took from them their bonds tmawathtqahumi and compacts (Cuhuda-hum) that they would not fight you nor aid anyone who fights you iwa-layuzahiru "alayka muhariban laka), like Qurayza and (people) likethem, who had compacts (Cahd) and treaties (Caqd)"; "then theybreak" ... is glossed: "they fight you (harabaka) and aid (?aharu) (yourenemy - K.) against yoU".64 The denunciation is defined more preciselyby Mujahid: the verse refers to Qurayza; they aided (mala'u) the en-emies of the Prophet on the "Day of the Ditch" against him." The ex-pression "fa-sharrid bihim man khalfahum" ("to scatter through themthose who are behind them"; or " ... as to strike fear" or " ... punishthem an exemplary punishment, so as to spread fear ", or "to deter")refers consequently to Qurayza." Verse 58 is also alleged to refer toQurayza. The phrase: "And if thou fearest treachery then throw back tothem (their treaty) fairly" ... has to be re-interpreted according to thecommentaries. "If somebody should say" argues al-Tabari, "how is itpermissible to violate a pact on the ground of (mere - K.) fear of treach-ery, while fear is Gust - K.) a conjecture, not a certainty (... wa-l-khaufu zannun ta yaqtnum, he may be answered: "the opposite of what

64 Al-Taban, Tafsir ed. Shakir XIV, 21-22.65 Al-Tabart, op. cit., XIV, 22, no. 16210; and see Mujahid, Tafsir ed. -Abd al-Rahman

al-Saratt, Islamabad n.d., I, 266-267.66 Al-Tabart, Tofsir XIV, 22-23.

82

you assumed is true: if the signs of the enemy's treachery become appar-ent, and you fear that you may be affected by it, then throw back tothem the keys of peace (treaties - K.) and announce war to them" {wa-adhinhum bi-l-harbii:" Al-Tabart argues that this was the case of Qur-ayza: they responded to the summons of Abu Sufyan and the unbelieversto help them against the Prophet and to fight on their side. This responsefollowed the conclusion of a treaty with the Prophet based on peacefulrelations (Cala musalamay and (the promise) not to fight the Prophet.When the signs of their treachery became manifest the Prophet had theright to declare war against them, concluded al-Tabarl." The samemethod of explanation is followed by Ibn al-cArabi,69 al-Qurtubi 70, andal-Suyuti. 71

The treaty itself between the Prophet and Qurayza is usually referredto as "ahd, 72 walthu "ahdin, 73 the already mentioned musiilama andmuwada'a and the verbs" 'ahada and "aqada. In fact the expressions"aqd and "ahd do not define clearly the nature of the treaty and its con-tents. A more precise term is the muwada'a, usually concluded with theunbelievers; it denotes a treaty of non-aggression, of renunciation of vio-lence. A compact of this kind would mean that Qurayza and the forcesof the Prophet would both refrain from any hostile action and would notaid any attacking force acting against either of these two parties.Muwadaa is thus a treaty of peaceful co-existence. It is interesting tonote the expression walthu "ahdin used by Ibn Sa'd: a precarious, crude,incomplete agreement. 75 How this kind of agreement was concluded canbe learned from a report recorded by <Abd al-Razzaq on the authority ofMusa b. CUqba:76 The Nadlr and Qurayza fought the Prophet; theProphet expelled the Nadtr but agreed that Qurayza should stay. Later

67 AI-Tabari, Tafsir, XIV, 25.68 AI-Taban, Tafsir, XIV, 26.69 Ahkam al-qur'an, ed. Ali Muhammad al-Bijawi, Cairo,1378/1967, p. 860.70 Tafsir (= al-Jami" li-ahkami I-qur'an) Cairo 1387/1967, VIII, 31-32.71 Al-durr al-manthur, Cairo 1314, III, 191.72 See Ibn Sa-d, op. cit., II, 71; al-Qurtubi, Tafsir, XIV, 139; Muqatil, Tafsir, Topkapi

Saray, Ahmet III, 74/1 147a; Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, Beirut 1385/1966, V, 442.73 Ibn' Sacd, op. cit., II, 77.74 See e.g. al-Qurtubi, Tafsir, XIV, 132.75 See Ibn al-Athtr, al-Nihaya fi gharibi 1-lJadith, s.v. with; al-Zamakhshari, al-Fa'iq, s.v.

with; £CA, s.v. with.76 ai-Musannaf Y], 54 u1t.-55, no. 9988 (the isnad recorded is: CAbd al-Razzaq - Ibn

JU,rayj - Mum b. CUqba - Nafic - Ibn CUmar).

83

Qurayza fought the Prophet. They were defeated, the men were execut-ed, the women, children and property were divided among the Muslims.Some of the Jews received the aman (safety) of the Prophet and convert-ed to Islam. This account is corroborated and elucidated by a reporttraced back to al-Zuhri: the Prophet, informed about the treacherous in-tentions of the Nadir, marched out against them with troops tbi-l-kata 'ib)and besieged them. He demanded that they conclude a compactwith him; if they refused, he in turn would refuse to grant them an assur-ance of safety (... innakum ta ta'manuna C indi ilia bi- Cahdin tu CahiduniCalayhi). They refused and the forces of the Prophet fought them (i.e.the Nadir) throughout the day. Next day the Prophet left the Nadir,went out with horsemen and troops against Qurayza and summonedthem to conclude an agreement; they consented and concluded a treatyand the Prophet left them. He returned with his troops to the Nadtr andfought them until they surrendered on condition that they would be ex-pelled." The agreement between Qurayza and the Prophet was thus, asit is called by Ibn Sa-d, walthu "ahdin, a crude, not elaborated agree-ment of peaceful co-existence. It was probably of the muwada'a kindgranting assurances of mutual safety."

An interesting case of muwadaia is recorded in some of the com-mentaries of Surat al-nisa' 87-89: fa-ma lakum fi l-munafiqina fi'a-tayn... Suraqa b. Malik is said to have received information that theProphet intended to send (after the battles of Badr and Uhud and afterthe conversion of the people of these localities to Islam) Khalid b. al-Walid to the Banu Mudlij (sci!. to attack them - K.). He went to theProphet and said: "I heard that you intend to send to my people, but Iwould like you to conclude with them a muwada'a (... wa-ana uridu antuwadi'ahumv; so if your people (i.e. Quraysh - K.) convert to Islamthey (i.e. the Mudlij - K.) would embrace Islam; if they (i.e. Quraysh)would not convert to Islam they would not be harsh towards them (i.e.towards Mudlij - K.). The Prophet ordered Khalid to act according toSuraqa's request; Khalid indeed concluded with them an agreement onthe basis that they would not give (anyone) aid against the Prophet ofGod (an Iii yu'tna <alarasali llahi) and they would embrace Islam after

77 cAbd al-Razzaq, op. cit., V, 360, no. 9733.78 Comp. EJ2, S.V. ~u~ca (vol. V, 316 sup.): fa-authiq lana hatta na'manaka wa-

ta'manana.

84

the conversion of Quraysh." One of the versions recorded by al-Suyiiticontains an additional clause according to which people who would joinMudlij will join the muwadasa of Mudlij twa-man wasala ilayhim minat-nasi kana <ata mithli cahdihim).80 It is thus an interesting case of atreaty concluded with unbelievers granting them security and allowingother people to join them on the basis of that treaty."

According to other traditions the verses of the Qur'an refer to an-other muwada:a: a group of Meccans, claiming to be muhajiran, cameto the Prophet; however, having renounced Islam, they asked the Proph-et's 'permission to go to Mecca in order to bring their merchandise. Somebelievers, who had received information about the treacherous plans ofthe group, wanted to kill them. Then the group declared that they wereproceeding to Hilal b. CUwaymir al-Aslami who had concluded a treatyof alliance (hilf or Cahd) with the Prophet; this kept them from the at-tack of the believers and they hoped to get security from both partiestwa-yurtdana bi-dhalika an ya'mana hahuna wa-hahunai. It is notewor-thy that people "whose hearts were restricted" (hasirat suduruhumy;who were reluctant to fight their own people and who consequently didnot have the courage to join the Muslim force, were not forced at thatearly period to join the Muslim force."

The concise report recorded by al-Tha-labt is of some interest: theProphet concluded a muwada:a with Hilal b. 'Uwaymir al-Aslami whenhe left Mecca. According to this muwada'a Hilal made a promise to aidneither the Prophet nor his adversary against him (an Iii yu'inahu wa-Iii yu'ina "alayhis:" The following stipulation established that anyone ofhis tribe or others who joined his court or asked shelter could be granted

79 Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, Beirut 1385/1966, II, 353.80 Al-Suyutt, al-Durr al-manthur , II, 191.81 See the discussion of this treaty and the problem of its abolition: al-Nahhas, al-Nasikh

wa-l-mansukh fi l-qur'ani l-karim, Cairo 1357/1938, pp. 110-112;cf. al-Shaukanl, Fath al-qadiral-jami" bayna fannayi l-riwaya wa-l-diraya min "ilmi I-tafsir, Beirut (reprint) n.d., I, 497;about the intent of the treaty see Ibn cArabi, Ahkam al-qur'an, Cairo 1387/1967, 1,470; andsee the judicial analysis in J~ Ahkam al-qur'an, Qustantiniyya, 1338 (reprint Beirut), II,219-221.

82 Mujahid, Tafsir, I, 168-169; and see al-Taban, Tafsir, IX, 9-10 (from Mujahid); a1-Suyutl, al-Durr al-manthur, II, 190 inf. (from Mujahid).

83 The clause following this stipulation: haua yara wa-yura (so vowelled in text) isslightly enigmatic; it probably means: until he would consider (the matter) and things wouldbe considered.

Banu Qurayza 85

the same protection tjiwarv as given to Hilal (wa-man wasala ita hilalinmin qaumihi wa-ghayrihim wa-laja'a ilayhim fa-lahum min al-jiwarimithlu lIadhr li-hiialin)Y

AI Jassas gives a concise comment on the legal status of Qurayza:both Nadir and Qurayza had no protection (of the Prophet and of theMuslim community - K.) at all; the Prophet expelled the Nadir andordered to have Qurayza killed. If they had had protection he would nothave expelled them nor killed them. Between them and the Prophetthere was merely a treaty and a truce which they violated. (wa-mailu-mun anna bant qurayzata wa-l-nadira lam takun lahum dhimmatunqattu, wa-qad ajla I-nabiyyu (s) bani l-nadiri wa-qatala bani qurayzata:wa-lau kana lahum dhimmatun lama ajlahum wa-la qatalahum; wa-innama kana baynahu wa-baynahum "ahdun wa-hudnatun fa-naqadu-ha ... )85 This corresponds exactly to what al-Shafi't described as al-sulhbi-l-muhadana" It is evident that a person or a tribal group, or a com-munity could conclude a treaty of muwada'a (or muhadana) with twoconflicting parties. Qurayza seem to have been in such a situation whenQuraysh and their Confederates arrived: they had a favourable attitudetowards the Prophet and the Muslims (who were their neighbours) andwere not happy when the Ahzab started the siege on Medina. Their atti-tude is described as follows by al-Waqidi: " ... they were at that timepeacefully inclined towards the Prophet and disliked the arrival of Qur-aysh (... wa-hum yauma'idhin silmun Ii-l-nabiyyi yakrahuna qudumaqurayshini+' In fact, according to the report of al-Waqidi, Qurayza lentthe besieged Muslims many tools for digging the ditch (for the defenceof Medina - K.) like shovels, baskets and axes." The fact that they ad-hered to the concluded treaty (the muwada:a or muhadanai is clearlyreflected in a passage from the speech of Huyayy b. Akhtab in which hetried to convince Qurayza to abandon their neutrality and begin cooper-ating with the besieging Quraysh: You are not with Muhammad nor areyou with Quraysh tfa-la antum ma:a rasuli llahi wa-la maia quray-

84 Al-Tha'Iabt, Tafsir , MS. Br. Mus. Add 19,926, p. 227.85 AI-JlI$$ll$, Ahkam al-qur'an, Istanbul 1338, II, 435.86 AI-Shafi<i, al-Umm, IV, 107.87 Al-Waqidi, op. cit., p. 445.88 Al-Waqidi, op. cit., p. 445; and see al-Samhiidi, op. cit., p. 1207, 1.1: wa-sta carn min

bani qurayzata mithla l-ma'tiwili wa-l-fu'us wa-ghayri dhalika,

86

shin).89 The lending of the tools to the forces of the Prophet in order toenable them to dig the ditch was certainly a display of the goodwill ofQurayza towards the Prophet and his force. There is no report whatso-ever about military actions of Qurayza against the force of the Prophet.The expedition against Qurayza and the severe punishment inflicted onthem are justified in the Muslim sources by reference to the clandestinenegotiations said to have been arranged between Qurayza and Quraysh,and the secret plan to attack the forces of the Prophet, a plan whichfailed however due to a stratagem of the Prophet carried out by Nu-aymb. Mas'ud."? As these negotiations were clandestine, the reliability of re-ports concerning them cannot be established.

What may however be assumed is that Qurayza had some commer-cial relations with the besieging Ahzab, This can be deduced from astory about a clash between a group from among the besieged Muslimsand a caravan of the besieging Ahzab. According to the report, a groupof the Banu cAmr b. cAuf who dwelt in Quba' asked the Prophet's per-mission to arrange a funeral for one of their relatives. When they wentout to the plain in order to bury the dead man they met Dirar b. al-Khattab with a group of unbelievers on camels loaded with wheat, bar-ley, straw and dates. This group had been sent by Abo Sufyan on hiscamels to the Banu Qurayza in order to purchase provisions from them.They were on their way back to the camp of the besieging Ahzab. In theencounter which ensued between the Muslims and the caravan of theunbelievers Diriir was wounded, the camel riders managed to escape andthe camels loaded with the provisions were led to the Prophet's camp;the booty proved a relief for the besieged, helping them in their expendi-ture." A more detailed version is recorded by Dahliin. A group of theAnsar, who went out to bury their deceased relative, met a caravan oftwenty camels with loads of straw, barley and dates. The caravan, which

89 Hashim b. Sulayman a1-Bal;1I11nial-Tauball al-Katakant, al-Burhan fi tafsiri l-qur'an,Qumm 1393, III, 299.

90 See e.g. al-Waqidi, op. cit., 480 seq.; but see the report recorded by al-Majlisi, BilJiirai-Anwar, Tehran 1392, XX, 246, no. II: The Prophet got information that Qurayza sent toAbu Sufyan and promised him to aid Quraysh in the case of an encounter between Qurayshand the Prophet. Then the Prophet stood up and addressed the Believers. He said: "Qurayzasent to us and promised us their aid and succour in the case of an encounter between us andAbu Sufyan." When Abii Sufyan was informed about the speech of the Prophet he said: "TheJews betrayed (us)." And he departed from them.

91 Al-Samhudi, op. cit., p, 304.

Banu Qurayza 87

had been sent as succour and assistance (madadan wa-taqwiyatan) toQuraysh, was led by Huyayy b. Akhtab. The Ansar seized the caravanand brought it to the Prophet; it was a relief for the Muslims.f We canprobably gauge from this report that Qurayza had large warehouses withprovisions which they could sell. This confirms the soundness of the dataabout the huge quantities of food, cattle, utensils, weapons and coats ofmail seized in the stronghold of Qurayza after their surrender. The com-parison of these data with those of the numbers of the fighting troopsand the data about the executed Qurazis and the enslaved women andchildren can help us to assess the details of the first stages of the clashand to evaluate properly the reports about the decisive period of theevents. According to a widely current tradition the angel Jibrll came tothe Prophet, urged him to march out against Qurayza and promised himto crush their stronghold." The stronghold seems to have been fortified.According to a tradition recorded by al-Suyutl, the Prophet, urged byJibrll to raid Qurayza, asked him: "How can I conquer their fortress"(kayfa lt bi-hisnihimy; Jibrll assured him of his help in destroying theirforce." The aim of the raid is indicated in another tradition: Jibril or-dered the Prophet to march out against Qurayza to kill the fighting menand to enslave their offspring, promising him that they would be a meansof subsistence for him (fa-inna llaha Cazza wa-jalla qad adhina laka fidhalika, fa-hum laka tu-matuni" Tuima was a well known politico-

92 Dahlan, al-Sira al-nabawiyya, Cairo 1310, II, 8.93 See e.g. aI-CAyni,op. cit., XVII, 189;al-Katakani, op. cit., Ill, 304; al-Baladhun, Ansiib

al-ashraf, ed. Muhammad Hamidullah, Cairo 1959, I, 347 inf.; Ibn Kathlr, al-Bidaya wa-I-nihaya, Beirut - Riyad 1966, IV, 116-118; Ibn Sayyid al-Nas, op. cit., II, 68; CAlib. Burhanal-Dm, Insan al-Fuyun fi sirat al-amin al-ma'mun, (= al-Sira al-halabiyya), Cairo 1382/1962,11,354; al-Diyarbakn, Ta'rikh al-khamis, Cairo 1283, I, 493; Ibn Kathir, Tafsir, V, 443; IbnHisham, al-Sira al-nabawiyya, ed. al-Saqqa, al-Abyari, Shalabi, Cairo 1355/1936, Ill, 244;al-Samarqandi, Tafsir al-qur'an, MS. Chester Beatty 3668, II, 134b; al-Qurtubi, op. cit., XIV,138-139; Ibn Sasd, op. cit., II, 74; cAbd al-Razzaq, op. cit., V, 369; Abu cAwana, Musnad,Hyderabad 1385/1965, IV, 167 seq.; al-Haythami, Majmas al-zawa'id, Beirut 1967 (repr.) VI,137; al-Kala-t, al-Iktifa' fi maghazi rasuli llahi wa-l-thalathati I-khulafo', ed. MlI$lafa cAbdaI-Wai).id,Cairo 1389/1970, II, 176; Ibn Hibban al-Busti, al-Thiqat, Hyderabad 1393/1973, I,274; Ibn Abi Shayba, Ta'nkh, MS. Berlin 9409 (Sprenger 104), fol. 49a; al-vlsamr, Simt al-nujum al-Fawali, Cairo 1380, II, 135; al-Suyuti, al-Khasa'is al-kubra, ed. Muhammad KhalilHanas, Cairo 1386/1967, II, 9; al-Maqnzt, Imtasu l-asmas bima li-l-rasidi min al-anba'i wa-l-amwali wa-I-lJafadati wa-t-matas, ed. Mahmud Muhammad Shakir, Cairo 1941, I, 241; al-Waqidi, op. cit., p. 497.

94 Al-Durr ai-manthur, Ill, 178.95 Muqatil, Tafsir, II, 90b.

88

economic term in the period of the Jahiliyya and in the period of theProphet.

The firm economic position of Qurayza enabled them to invite theso-called "hypocrites", the Medinan munafiqan, during the siege of Me-dina to seek refuge in their stronghold." The munafiqun were in fact agroup of Medinans who had outwardly converted to Islam, but who hadremained loyal to their former allies, faithful to their Jahill ideals andtheir tribal relations; they cooperated with Qurayza and knew that theycould rely on their help in times of need. They were reluctant to be in-volved in the conflicts of the Prophet with Quraysh or with other tribalgroups. This attitude of the group of munafiqun can be gauged from apassage recorded by Ibn al-vArabf:

The munafiqun used to aid the Jews of Qurayza and the Christians of Naj-ran because they (i.e. the Jews and the Christians - K.) were people of culti-vated land and used to supply them with provisions and lend them money.Therefore they said: "How are we to sever the bonds of friendship with apeople who make our dwellings spacious when we are aillicted by a year ofdrought and are in need of them"."

The close relations between Qurayza and the Aus, which had deep rootsin the Jahiliyya period, brought about the peculiar situation that severalmembers of the Muslim Aus interceded with Sa'd b. Mu'adh, askinghim to be lenient in his judgment of Qurayza. They were, of course,aware of being faithful believers, but they could not free themselvesfrom the feeling that they should remain faithful to their Qurazt allies inaccordance with their obligations from the period of the Jahiliyya, Thisgroup is often referred to as "al-munafiqun".

The extent of the raid against Qurayza and its results can be judgedby the number of the Muslim warriors who participated in the siege ofthe stronghold. Widely current reports give their number as three thou-

96 Muqatil, 'Tofsir, II, 89a: wa-dhalika anna l-ydhuda arsalu ila-l-munafiqina yaumal-khandaqi fa-qiilu madha yahmilukum calii an taatulu anfusakum bi-aydi abi sufyiina wa-manmasahu ... inna la-nushfiqu <alaykum, innama antum ikhwanuna wa-na/:lnu jiranukum, fa-halumma ilayna ... ; and see al-Qurtubi, op. cit., XIV, 152 sup.

97 rim a1-cArabi, Ahkam al-qur'an, II, 629: ... kana l-munafiquna yuwiizirUna yahudaqurayzata wa-nasara najrana /i-annahum kanu ahla rifin wa-kanu yamirunahum wa-yuqri4unahum,./a-qiilu: kayfa naqta=u mawaddata qaumin idha asabatna sanatun fa-/:Itajniiilayhim wassaCu <alayna l-manazila ... ; and cr. a1-waqidi, op. cit., p, 704: fa-inni ciirifun bi-khaybara, hiya rifu l-/:Iijiizi aima'a.

Banu Qurayza 89

sand warriors and thirty-six horsemen." The data about the Iength ofthe siege"? and the number of the executed Qurazt men and enslavedwomen and children are divergent.'?" The large force which marched outagainst Qurayza seems to indicate that the Prophet was aware of thestrength of Qurayza. The Prophet could draw some conclusions from the"Campaign of the Ditch": he mobilized a great number of his troops.They could surround the stronghold of Qurayza and wait patiently untilthe besieged surrendered. There was some shooting;'?' but there were noserious encounters and the number of killed from both parties was verysmall.t'" The besieged Qurayza, forsaken by their allies, could not expect

98 See Ibn Sa-d, op. cit., II, 74; al-Maqnzt, op. cit., I, 250; al-CAyni,op. cit., XVII, 188;CAlib. Burhan al-Din, op. cit., II, 355: Ibn Sayyid aJ-NiIS,op. cit., II, 68; al-Waqidt, op. cit.,522. .

99 See e.g. al-Qurtubi, op. cit., XIV, 139 (20 nights); aJ-Samarqandi, op. cit., II, 134b (15nights); Muqatil, op. cit., II, 90b, I, 143b (21 nights); Ibn Sa'd, op. cit., II, 74 (14 nights); IbncAbd aJ-Barr al-Qurtubi, al-Durar fi khtisari l-maghazi wa-l-siyar, ed. Shauqi Dayf, Cairo1386/1966, p. 189 (more than 20 nights); Ibn Kathtr, Tafsir , V, 443 (25 nights); al-Diyarbakrt,op. cit., 1,493 (10, 15, 21, 25 nights); CAlib. Burhan al-Dln, op. cit., II, 357 (15 days, 25 nights,a month); Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya, IV, 124 (25 nights); aJ-CAyni,op. cit., XVII, 188 (more than20, 15, 25 nights); al-Maqrizl, op. cit., I, 241 (25 nights, 15 days, a month); al-slsamt, op. cit.,11,136 (15 nights, 25 nights, more than to nights); al-Baladhuri, Futid; al-buldan, ed. cAbdaJlahand cUmar al-Tabba-, Beirut 1377/1957, p. 32 (15 nights); al-Kalas, op. cit., 11,177 (25 nights);Ibn Hibban, op. cit., I, 274 (25 nights); and see Barakat Ahmad, op. cit., p. 73 (notes 7-8).

I()() See e.g. Muqatil, op. cit., II, 90b (450 men killed, 750 enslaved); al-Waqidi, op. cit.,517-518 (600-700 executed); Mughultay, al-Zahr al-basim fi sirat abi l-qasim, MS Leiden, or.370, fol. 278a (400 men executed); al-Suyuti, al-Durr al-manthur, V, 193 (on the authority ofQatada: 400 fighting men executed, 700 women and children enslaved); Abo <Ubayd, al-Amwal, p. 130, no. 348 (400 men killed); Ibn Junghul, Ta'rikh, MS. Br. Mus. Or. 5912, fol.287a (600-700 men, 800-900 men; on the authority ofaJ-Layth b. Sa-d: 400 men); aJ-Dhahabi,Siyar a/lam al-nubala', ed. Salah al-Dm aJ-Munajjid, Cairo 1956, I, 205 (400 men executed);Ibn Sasd, op. cit., II, 74 (600-700 men killed); aJ-Maqrizi, op. cit., II, 138 (400,800-900 killed);Ibn Hibban aJ-Busti, op. cit., I, 278 (600-900 executed); aJ-CAyni,op. cit., XVII, 192 (400, 600,700, 900 beheaded); Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya, IV, 122, (400, 600-700, 800-900 executed); IbnSayyid aJ-NiIS,op. cit., II, 73 (600, 700, 800-900 killed); Ibn al-Athrr, Jami" al-usid, ed.MUhammad Hamid al-Fiqi, Cairo 1371/1952, IX, 202, no. 6088 (400 men executed); CAlib.Burhan al-Dm, op. cit., II, 360 (400, 600, 700, 750, 800 killed); al-Zurqani, Sharh al-mawahibal-Iaduniyya, Cairo 1325, II, 137 (600,700,800-900,400 men executed); Ibn Kathir, Tafsir,V, 444 (700-800); al-Nasafi, Tafsir , Cairo n.d. II, 300 (800-900 fighting men killed, or 600; 700enslaved women and children); al-Diyarbakri, op. cit., I, 497 (400,700,700-800); al-Ya'qubi,Ta'rikh, ed. MUhammad Sadiq Bahr aJ-cUlOm,Najaf 4384/1964, II, 43 (750 fighting menexecuted); aJ-MajliSi,op. cit., XX, 212 (600 fighting men executed; or 450 men killed; 750enslaved); aJ-Maqdisi, al-Bad' wa-l-ta'rikh , ed. Huart, Paris 1899, IV, 220 (700 killed); IbnCAbdaJ-Barr, al-Isti=ab, ed. CAliMUhammad al-Bijawi, Cairo 1380/1960, p. 603 (400 menkilled).

101 See e.g. aJ-Waqidi, op. cit., p. 500.102 See e.g, aJ-Waqidi, op. cit., P. 529.

90

any success if they launched an attack against the besieging force. Theycould probably attack suddenly and cause some losses to the besiegingforce, but they could not save themselves. The speech of Ka-b b. Asadwith his three proposals which were rejected by Qurayza 103 is probablyan invention, but it reflects the grave situation of Qurayza, their despairand the few alternatives left to them. The stronghold of Qurayza was notfar from Medina; al-Katakani reports that the abode of Qurayza was 2miles from Medina; the place was called Bi'r cAbd al-Muttalib.'?' Thebesieging force received their supplies from Medina; Sa'd b. 'Ubada sup-plied them with dates. lOS As mentioned above, there is no reference toserious war activities; but there was a Iively movement of Qurazi delegateswho went down in order to negotiate with the Prophet the terms of theirsurrender. Finally they were compelled to surrender unconditionally.They probably still fostered some hopes that they would be expelled, los-ing all their possessions. There were in fact some of the Aus who dared tointercede with the Prophet, asking him to be lenient with Qurayza, TheProphet preferred to transfer the authority of arbitration and judgment toSa'd b. Mu'adh, a member of the Aus, who were the allies of Qurayza,The Prophet could indeed trust Sa'd b. Mir'adh and rely on his decision:after all, he had been entrusted with arranging the murder of Ka'bb. al-Ashraf; it was Sa'd b. Mu'adh who sent Muhammad b. Maslama toKa'b b. al-Ashraf to slay him.l'" As arbiter, hakam, Sa'd had to obtain inadvance approval for his verdict from all the parties involved.'?" Onlythen could he issue his judgment concerning Qurayza, The Prophet grant-ed it his approval stating that it had been revealed from heaven. 108

103 See Barakat Ahmad, op. cit., p, 72 seq. and his analysis of Kasb's speech. And seeaI-Majlisi, op. cit., XX, 210-211.

104 Al-Katakant, op. cit., III, 296; aI-Majlisi, op. cit., XX, 217; but see al-Samhudi, op.cit., p. 1141 (Bi'r Muttalib 5 miles from Medina).

105 See e.g. al-Waqidt, op. cit., p. 500; CAli b. Durban al-Dtn, op. cit., II, 357.106 See al-Bayhaqt, al-Sunan al-kubra, Hyderabad 1344, IX, 183: fa-lamma aha kasb b.

al-ashraf an yanzisa Can adha rasuli lIahi M wa-adha l-muslimin amara rasulu llahi ($) sasdabna mu'adhin (r) an yab'tuha rahtan li-yaatuluhu; fa-ba'atha i/ayhi sardu bnu mucadhinmuhammada bna maslamata l-ansariyya ... ; Ibn al-Dayba", Taysir al-wusul ita jami" 1-U$iU,Cairo 1388/1968, I, 285.

107 See Barakat Ahmad, op. cit., pp. 77·78 (nos. VI-X) and the discussion pp. 79-82.108 See Watt, The Condemnation; and cf. al-Dhahabi, al-Uluww, p. 32; Ibn <Abd al-Barr,

al-lsWab, p. 603-604; and see al-Suyuti, al-Durr, III, 178: the decree conveyed to the Prophetin the morning by an angel (.. .fa-hakama [i.e. Sacdlfthim an tuqtala muqatilatuhum wa-tusba

91

The order of the Prophet to stand up in honour of Sa'd, their sayyid,and the remark of 'Umar: "the sayyid is God"109 seem to combine twoelements: the injunction to honour an eminent person of the community(or of the tribe - K.) by standing up, and the permissibility of namingthis person sayyid; 'Umar had the courage to differ and to state that"sayyid", Lord, could only refer to God. The order of the Prophet tostand up in honour of Sa-d contradicts utterances attributed to theProphet in which he is said to have forbidden standing up in honour ofimportant persons and to have prohibited notables from asking their peo-ple to stand up in front of them;'!" as it is a practice of the a-ajim.:"

dhararihim fa-qala rasulu llahi (s): bi-dhalika taraqani l-malaku saharany; and see al-Zurqani,Sharh al-mawahib II, 135-136 (different versions of the judgment, the explanation of bi-dhalikataraqani al-malak saharan, the discussion whether the imam is permitted to transfer his au-thority to the arbiter); and see Muqatil, Tafsir, ed. <Abdallah Mahmud Shahata, Cairo 1969,1,61 (commenting onfa'fit wa-sfahu Muqatil rendersfac.rit by: utrukuhum wa-sfahu, yaqulu:wa-a'ridu "ani l-yahudi; haua ya'tiya llahu bi-amrihi Muqatil explains: fa-ata llahu "azzawa-jalla bi-amrihi fi ah/i qurayzata: al-qatlu wa-I-sabyu ... ; and see ib. p. 303: fa-kana amrullahi fihim al-qatla wa-I-sabya. The fate of Qurayza was thus predestined by God).

109 See Watt, The Condemnation, p. 161; Barakat Ahmad, op. cit., p. 92.110 See e.g. al-Sakhawi, al-Maqasid al-hasana, ed. <Abdallah Muhammad al-Sadiq, Beirut

1399/1979, p. 393, no. 1043 (but the permissibility recorded according to the precedent ofSa"db. Mu-adh); Ibn Hamza l-Husayni, al-Bayan wa-l-ta'rif fi asbab wurudi I-hadithi l-sharif, Bei-rut 1400/1980, III, 194, no. 1508; al-Mu-afa b. clmran, Kitab al-zuhd, MS. Zahiriyya hadith359, fol. 246b (man ahabba an yamthula ... ); Ibn Kathir, al-Bidaya, VII, 126 (man ahabba ... );Ibn <Abd al-Barr, Bahjat al-majalis wa-uns al-mujalis , ed. Muhammad Mum al-Khiili andcAbd al-Qadir al-Qutt, Cairo, I, 274 (man sarrahu ... ; and: qumu ila sayyidikum); al-Sha'ram,Lawaqih al-anwar , Cairo 1381/1961, p. 834 inf. (man ahabba an yatamaththala ... ); al-Bayhaqi, Shuab al-iman, MS Reisiilkiittab 219, fol. 149, sup. (man ahabba an yatamath-thala ... ); cAli b. Muhammad al-Mu-addil, Juz'; MS. Zahiriyya 18, fol. 274a (man ahabba antaquma lahu ... ); Salah al-Din al-Munajjid (ed.), Rasa'il wa-nusus III, Ibn Taymiyya, Fatwa fil-nuhud wa-l-alqab, Beirut 1963, p. II (man sarrahu ... ).

111 See e.g. al-Zajjaji, A mali, ed. -Abd al-Salam Harlin, Cairo 1382/1963, p. 68 (fataqumu kama taqumu l-aCajim); al-Mucara b. Imran, op. cit., fol. 246b (la-taqumu kamatusazzimu (I) l-arajimu basduhum basdan: lasana llahu man qamat lahu l-sabidu $ufofanqiyaman; and see esp. ult.: la yuqamu li, innama yuqamu li-llahiv; al-Bayhaqt, Shu/ab, fol.148b info (Can anas: ma kana shakhsun ahabba ilayhim min rasuli llahi (s) wa-kanu idhararauhu lam yataharraku li-ma carafu min karahiyyatihi li-dhalikay; ib.: la taqumu kamataqumu l-a'ajim ... ; al-Sha'rant, Lawaqih, p. 834 tla-taqumu <ala ru'usi a'immatikum kamataqumu l-arajimu "ala ru'usi mulukiha; and p. 835: la taqumu kamataqumu l-araiimur; <Alib. Muhammad al-Musaddil, al-Juz' al-awwal, al-Fawa'id al-hisan, MS. Zahiriyya 18, fol. 274a(Can anas: mil kana shakhsun ahabba ilayhim ... ; qitmu ila sayyidikum ... ); Ibn CAdiyy, al-Kamil fi du'ofa'i l-rijal, MS. Ahmet III, 2943/1. fol. I27b.(innamil halaka man kana qablakumbi-an "azzamu mulukahum bi-an qamu wa-qasadu ... ); Saial:I al-Din al-Munajjid, ed., Rasa'il,p, 10 (lam yakun shakhsun ... ).

92

The utterance qama ita sayyidikum was commented in various ways inorder to. evade unnecessary polemics. Qumu was in some of the commen-taries interpreted as a summons to the people to stand up and aid thewounded Sa'd to alight. I 12 The word sayyid was explained as pointing tothe idea of siyada inherent in his authority as appointed arbiter.!!' Ac-cording to some traditions, however, reflecting the ideas of conservative-ascetic circles in Islam, the Prophet himself forbade addressing peopleby the title sayyid: When "Abdallah b. al-Shikhkhir came to the Prophetand addressed him by "sayyiduna" the Prophet said: "The sayyid isGod."114 It was a plausible solution to record another version, which didnot cause polemics: qumu ita khayrikum+'? The phrase qumu ila sayyi-dikum, which was in fact an expression of esteem and respect, seems tohave been current in the period of the Prophet and became in later timesa subject of politico-theological polemics.

The number of the besieging forces: 36 horsemen and 3000 foot-soldiers and the period of the siege generally given as lasting between15 - 25 days indicates that the stronghold was fortified and that the pop-ulation was numerous. The number of 400 Qurazi men able to fight,which is the smaller number recorded in all the versions about the sur-render, seems to be plausible; nowhere in all the sources available is asmaller number mentioned. The different reports of Sa-d's decree vary intheir wording as to those who were to be put to death: "men", "thoseover whom the razors had passed", "fighting men", "adults". 116Themeaning of all the reports is the same: the men able to fight have to bebeheaded; in many compendia of fiqh this is identified with the age ofpuberty or adolescence.

The details about the place of execution and its duration are diver-gent or even contradictory. The commentators claim that Sa-d issued his

112 See e.g. al-Munawt, Fayd al-qadir, Beirut 1391/1972, IV, 530, no. 6164: ... wa-qilamasnahu qumu li-isanatihi fi-l-nuzidi <ani l-dabbati li-ma bihi min al-jarh ...

113 See e.g. al-CAyniop. cit., XVI, 269: ... wa-imma bi-an yurada bihi al-siyadatu 1-khassatu, ay min jihati tahkimihi fi-badhihi l-qadiyya.: and see the comment of Suhayli,al-Raud al-unuf, VI, 368.

114 Mughull8Y,op. cit., fol. 282a; Ibn Sa-d, op. cit., I, 311, 1.5;Ibn al-Athlr, Usd al-ghaba,III, 182-183.

us See e.g. al-CAyni,op. cit., XVI, 269, XVII, 191; Ibn Hamza al-Husaynt, op. cit., III,70, no. 1286; Yusuf b. Miisa l-Hanafi, al-Mu'tasar min al-mukhtasar min mushkili I-lithar,Hyderabad 1362, II, 387; al-Bayhaqi, Shu-ab, fol. 148a; Ibn al-Athir, Jami" al usu! minahadith! l-rasid, IX, 203, no. 6089.

116 See Barakat Ahmad, op. cit., 81-82.

93

judgment in the mosque erected on the territory of Qurayza.!'? Someother sources state that he uttered it in the mosque of Medina. All thereports agree, however, that the Qurayza were led to Medina and ex-ecuted there.

There are diverse traditions concerning the exact place of execution.Several reports say that the Qurazis were beheaded in the market of Me-dina and buried there; 118 some Shiei sources report that the ditches weredug in Baqi", and the corpses of the executed Qurazis were buriedthere.'!" The Baql", according to some reports, was adjacent to the mar-ket of Medina; some reports mention it as forming part of the market.!"According to ShIC"fsources the executions were carried out in the coolperiods of the day: in the morning and in the evening, over a period ofthree days.':" This was in compliance with an explicit order of the Pro-phet not to increase the sufferings of the Qurazis by executing them in thehottest hours of the day; the Prophet also ordered that they be pro-vided with sweet water and good food and that proper conditions for theircaptivity be maintained.':" Other reports say that the executions were car-ried out during one day and lasted until the evening when they were car-ried out at the light of firebrands. 123 Shi't reports say that cAli beheadedtwenty Qurazi captives; each Companion beheaded one or two cap-tives.':" Certain reports tell an interesting story about how the Aus, whohad criticized the execution of the Qurazis, became involved in the opera-tion: some captives were divided among the different clans of the Aus andeach clan had to put to death their captives.':" Several accounts stress thatCAli and al-Zubayr carried out the executions in the market of Medina. 126

The number of women and children which is given in some sourcesis 1000. This seems to be trustworthy when it is compared with the num-

117 Ibn Hajar, Fath al-bari, VII, 317; al-CAyni, op. cit., XVI, 269; Barakat Ahmad, op.cit., pp. 90·91.

118 See above, and notes 31-34.119 Al-Katakani, op. cit., III, 305; al-Majlisi, op. cit., XX, 23b.120 See M. Lecker, The Markets of Medina, note 57.121 Al-Katakant, op. cit., III, 305; al-Majlisi, op. cit., XX, 237 inf.-238.122 See e.g, al-Majlist, op. cit., XX, 238, 11.1-2.123 See e.g. al-Waqidi, op. cit., p. 517; CAli b. Burhan al-Dln, op. cit., II, 365.124 al-Katakani, op. cit., III, 306.125 See Barakat Ahmad, op. cit., p. 91; M. Watt, Muhammad at Medina, 215 inf.-216;

al-Zurqant, Sharh al-mawahib, II, 137.126 See e.g. Barakat Ahmad, op.cit., pp. 83, 85; M. Watt, Muhammad at Medina, p, 216.

94

ber of executed men, which is said to have been 400. The women andchildren were sent to Syria and Najd and sold there in exchange forhorses and weapons.!" Some of them were bought by the Jews of Khay-bar, Wadi l-Qura, Tayrna, and by a Jew of Medina.!" others werebought by cAbd al-Rahman b. cAuf and -Uthman: these two are said tohave made a profit; it was especially "Uthman who was successful in thiscommercial enterprise.!" Several women were divided among the believ-ers in Medina; some accounts say that this was done in accordance withone of the injunctions of Sa-d b. Mu-adh: to kill the men and spare thewomen "in order that the believers might be aided by them" (i.e. by thewomen - K.).I3O

The list of the booty of Qurayza which was collected by thebelievers after the surrender is of importance: 1500 swords, 300 coats ofmail, 200 spears, 1500 shields; in addition to the weapons there werehousehold goods, utensils, camels and cattle. The wine was, of course,poured OUt.1J1The large quantities of weapons are disproportionate rela-tive to the number of fighting men (i.e. men who reached puberty - K.):1500 swords, 1500 shields and 2000 spears exceed the military needs of400 men able to fight. The only possible conjecture is that Qurayza usedto sell (or lend) some of the weapons kept in the storehouses in theirstronghold. The title "ahlu l-halqa" "the people of the weapons" bywhich Quraysh in their letter addressed the Jews is to be explained byreference to these storehouses, in which weapons were accumulated andstored.J" These weapons seem to have strengthened their position andprestige in the tribal society.

The suspicions that Qurayza attempted to plot with Quraysh againstthe Prophet would probably not justify the cruel punishment of execu-

127 See al-Waqidi, op. cit., p. 523.128 See Barakat Ahmad, op. cit., p. 88.129 See e.g. al-Waqidt, op. cit., p. 523; <Ali b. Burhan al-Din, op. cit., II, 379; aI-Maqrizi,

Imta", I, 251.130 Abo <Ubayd, op. cit., p. 130, no. 348; Ibn al-Athlr, Jamie al-usul, IX, 202, no. 6088.131 See e.g. al-Waqidl, op. cit., 509-510; al-Zurqani, Sharh al-mawahib, II, 137 (500

shields); al-Maqnzi, op. cit., I, 245; <Ali b. Burhan ai-Din, op. cit., II, 363 ult. (500 shields); IbnSayyid al-Nas, op. cit., II, 74 (500 shields); al-Diyarbakri, op. cit., I, 496 inf. (500 shields); IbnSasd, op. cit., II, 75; Muhammad b. Yahya Bahran, Ibtisam al-barq, sharh manzumat al-qasasal-haqq fi sirat khayri l-khalq, ed. Yahya b. C Abd ai-Karim al-Fudayl, Beirut 1"394/1974, p. 178(100 spears).

132 See e.g. cAbd al-Razzaq, op. cit., V, 359.

Banu Qurayza 95

tion of the fighting men and the sale of the women and children; Qu-rayza repented of their deeds, the people of Aus beseeched the Prophet,asking him to pardon Qurayza.P! One might have expected the Prophetto pardon them. There must have been an additional reason for the hos-tility of the Prophet against Qurayza, not disclosed in the vague ac-counts about the violation of the treaty. This can be gauged from thepassage in the commentary of Muqatil on Surat al-Anfal, verse 57:"The Jews violated the compact between them and the Prophet and aid-ed the unbelievers of Mecca by providing them with weapons with whichto fight the Prophet and his Companions."!"

Qurayza were, as mentioned, ready to depart with their familiesleaving the huge quantities of weapons as booty for the Prophet. TheProphet's approval of the cruel judgment of Sa-d cannot be explained inthis case. Never before had the Prophet inflicted such a punishment onany tribal group.

Current reports say that the land and booty of Qurayza were dividedamong the 3000 warriors and 36 horsemen; the khums was taken out ofthe booty. I3S A different account reports that Sa'd b. Mu'adh ordered inhis decree that the property of Qurayza be divided among the Muhajir-un only, not among the Ansar.I" According to another report it was theProphet who allotted land and immovable property to the Muhajirun,emphasizing in his address to the Ansar that they were living in theirabode (and consequently did not need additional land - K.).137 Thereseems to have been some feeling of discontent amont the Ansar in con-nection with the division of the land of Qurayza. This is reflected in areport stating that Sa-d b. Mu-adh decreed that the land of Qurayza beallotted to the Muhajirun twa-takuna l-diyaru li-l-muhajirtni; the Ansar

133 Al-WaqiQj, op. cit., p. 510.134 Muqatil, op. cit., I, 147a: ... wa-dhalika anna l-yahuda naqadu l-sahda lladhi kana

baynahum wa-bayna l-nabiyyi (s) wa-aCiinumushriki makkata bi-l-silahi <alaqitiili l-nabiyyi (s)wa-ashabihi thumma yaqulima nasina wa-akhia'na, thumma vusahiduhum al-thaniyata fa-yanquduna l-sahda.

135 See e.g. aI·Waqidi, op. cit., p. 521-525; Ibn Hisham, Sira, III, 256; al-Baladhurt,FutUIJ,p. 33; al-Maqnzi, op. cit., I, 250; Ibn Hibban, op. cit., I, 278; al-Kala-r, al-Iktifa', II,186; Ibn sAbd al-Barr, al-Durar, p. 193; al-Qurtubl, op. cit., XIV, 142; and see Barakat Ahmad,op. cit., p, 89.

136 Al-Ya-qub], op. cit., II, 43; al-Katakani, op. cit., III, 306.137 Al-Nasaft, Tafsir, III, 301: ruwiya anna rasula llahi jasala Caqiirahumli-l-muhajinna

duna l-ansari wa-qala lahum innakum fi manazilikum,

96

objected, arguing that they had property shared with the Muhajirun,Sa-d replied: "I wanted them (i.e. the Muhajirun - K.) to become self-sufficient, and not need your aid".138 More details about the division ofthe palm trees of Qurayza are given by Ibn Hajar: the Ansar helped theMuhajirun by granting them palm trees for their use. After the conquestof the Iands of Nadir and Qurayza the Muhajirun were granted land andpalm trees and could thus return the trees which the Ansar had giventhern.!"

The division of the land and property improved the status of theMuhajirun at Medina and helped them to gain their economic indepen-dence. The military strength of the Muslim community of Medina grewdue to the weapons taken as booty; the sale of the captured women andchildren as slaves for horses and weapons enabled to enlarge the Muslimmilitary force for further conquests.

The Jewish tribe of Qurayza ceased to exist.

138 CAli b. Burhan al-Din, op. cit., II, 362 iinni. ahbabtu an yastaghnu Cankum); and cf.aJ-Majlisi,op. cit., XX, 212 sup.: innakum dhawu "aqarin wa-Iaysa li-l-muhajirina <aqar,

139 Fath al-bari, VII, 316.